AIM-9X Performance
-
So something that is been bothering me for a while with BMS is that the 9x eats flares as often as the most other IR missiles. When from various bits of leaked intel and from our understanding of how the imaging seeker on the 9x works it should be immune to all the flare types in BMS. I’m kinda hopping in a future update to 4.34 the 9x will be brought more in line with rlf .
-
I did get to see a 9x get spoofed by a flare that was behind the aircraft that was coming at me recently. 4.34 has definitely turned the 9x into junk against flares.
-
So something that is been bothering me for a while with BMS is that the 9x eats flares as often as the most other IR missiles.
Really ? So you would say that the BMS AIM-9X is on par with the BMS AIM-9M ? Show us your proof.
-
Really ? So you would say that the BMS AIM-9X is on par with the BMS AIM-9M ? Show us your proof.
You shouldn’t enter into the debating on that subject my friend
-
(I know, I’m bad. I can’t help it.)
-
Until there is a big war, and despite all those papers and extensive tests, it’s unclear how missile will perform in RL operational scenario. Like in Vietnam, in Iraq (9M against “crude” Russian flares) and recently in Syria (9X against same Russian flare), there might be some unpleasant surprises.
So, who really knows how those missiles will perform? Everything is only assumptions.
Also, at least some time ago, in training USAF counted as a kill 2 valid 9X “shots”.
-
-
I have seen that some flares after deployment they tend to go forward rapidly in order to simulate the velocity of the ir signature of the jet.
Common sense says that this flare upgrade was made to face IIR missiles like AIM9X or AIM2000. I think that in bms the only thing that is simulated for these missiles is the range that the seeker can uncage on an ir source.
I have uncaged an AIM2000 on an aircraft that was dropping flares and the seeker stuck on one of these. It suppose to be an abvanced infrared seeker far more better than other older versions of ir missiles. It is expected not to do that thing in real life but as mentioned we can’t access so classified data. At least we can try to adapt the seeker by defining more thresholds for the ir signature, may be speed or intensity but I have no idea if this is possible.
Another thing that I would like to mention is the possibility of adding other type of flares(if it’s possible of course)like MJU50 for instance. They carry pyrophoric special material which means that can not be seen from the shooting aircraft while the defender is deploying them. Cool thing I think
Στάλθηκε από το SM-J530F μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
The flare resistance of aim9x seeker is classified
The BMS flare resistance code is classified as well
Those two facts make any guess as good as another one
-
AIM-9X I don’t know (?) … but SA-18 / SA-24 (probably MICA also) are HIGHLY immune to flares (Strong IRCCM + imagery matrix).
-
-
they may be immune to tracking the decoy, but they are likely not immune to being blinded by the decoy.
-
Be aware that when uncaged , the tone of the missile gives you an indication of the seeker might be flared or not
The flared tone is a scratching tone
This is new feature in 4.34
-
they may be immune to tracking the decoy, but they are likely not immune to being blinded by the decoy.
If I put a strong IR light in your face by night … will you be blinded by the IR beam if you won’t wear NVGs?
…. same apply to IR band I and IR band II …
-
The BMS flare resistance code is classified as well
Are we flying a classified simulator??? That’s way far more than cool!!!
-
-
… proves that AIM-9 has not a 100% efficiency. But doesn’t prove that it has been decoyed. (Sometimes missile’s rocket engine do even not ignites)
-
honestly now, the 9x is fully digital yes, it uses the same NATO techniques developed to resist flares with the added strength of being reliant on digital imaging which can be forced into certain spectrums and taught to ignore others, however they are not 100% effective. Much has been written over the years in publications about soviet flare making process, which is hand made. If you can find it, there is an issue in 1989 from the old war publication “Soviet air power” which was a soft cover quarterly magazine. Soviet and russian era, sukhoi and mig built flares are disgusting. What they use in demo flights and what they use in operational aircraft are oranges to apples. See the incident in which the hornet missed twice with the 9x at visual range just a few years ago in syria. It’s still an Aim9, it’s just digital. You went from a tube array, to a simulated tube array in a modeled circuit. This is actually arguably, worse.
-
If I put a strong IR light in your face by night … will you be blinded by the IR beam if you won’t wear NVGs?
…. same apply to IR band I and IR band II …
yes but you can apply filters, also there are concepts which use a color correction to take the starlite green or the whot bhot image and either change it to something , filter something out, or try and go for true color conversion.
keep in mind that IRmasking and IRflood lights are 1970s era ADT home security technology and not exactly cutting edge classified access etc etc etc. Nowadays well there were programs like cheshire and Magiceye which literally outlined optic invisibility as the goal, to the tune of umpteen billions of DARPA ka ching.
the modern area denial for people who might be coming at you in NVGS or thermal is pulsating frequency emitters which create distortions around sololuminecse. in human, very fast in audible frequencies near the 987hz range start to produce photo emanations, coupled with actual low light from say a noble gas like neon or something more exotic, you can create washed out areas without having to flood the area with visible light. Similar to how those beep beep beep cockroach deterrents work in theory and concept. Banks, Ports, trainyards actively employ this technology, usually DHS is who is licensing it, but again, old news. ADT, Brinks are the ones who pioneered it for their corporate clientele.
-
First this was not about how it compares too other missiles by default the 9X should be immune to all the flare types and IR countermeasures in the sim right now fact… The actual flare resistances may be classified but we have an understanding of how this stuff works. Its not like it can just stop abiding by the laws of physics. The seeker is an imaging seeker that uses an undisclosed (but undoubtedly high) number of ir sensitive pixels to find and track the target. Before launch it will take a “snapshot” of the pattern and IR intensity of this tracked object. It will then home in on this pattern and will filter out all other IR sources that don’t match that pattern. And this doesn’t even include all the other ways you can strip out flares with a IR seeker such as flare rise time, ir energy distribution, and size. This is how this type of seeker works and is why every major power is making their own versions and if they can’t make their own their buying it. The ASRAAM, IRST, and K-74 (only reportedly still in development) all use this system. The ASRAAM and IRST are stated by multiple sources to have nearly unmatched IR countermeasure resistance (including to DIRCM). So why would the 9x (especially the newer BLKII) be any different?
To continue,
there is 0 evidence that the SU-22 deployed any flares at all. Listening to the pilots at tailhook they never said the su22 deployed flares only that they fired and the aim-9x went off into oblivion. Plus from other pilots who have looked at the incident one phrase is constant “it missed due to human error nothing else”.
AIM-9X I don’t know (?) … but SA-18 / SA-24 (probably MICA also) are HIGHLY immune to flares (Strong IRCCM + imagery matrix).
These missiles are known to have very high flare resistances yet the AIM-9x which uses a seeker that just by its basic design will be more immune has only slightly higher flare resistance values as the 9M.
Flare resistance tests:
first a video
Now you may cry its a pointless test as its using “American flares” but what proof do you have that these were your typical American flares? The people who design this stuff aren’t idiots and with the experience in the gulf war of unexpectedly bad flare rise times in Russian flares causing 9M’s to miss known I have little doubt that this was a consideration. Plus by the time of the 9x’s development the iron curtain had fallen and we had access to east German mig-29’s and all their associated equipment.
For BMS after a lot of test firings with a buddy of mine we have come to this conclusion: First if you use the flare pattern in the above video every ir missile in the game will miss. Second, The 9M when deploying about 2-3 flares a second will often eat the 5th-6th flare with the 9X eating the 8th-10th flare on average. It seems that the flare rejection (much like in 4.32/4.33) is still a percent chance. Much like with chaff in DCS, the more flares and the quicker they are dropped the more likely a missile will miss. With factors such as angle off and range being a multiplier added into this percentage. The farther away and the greater the angle off the quicker both missiles will eat a flare. Additionally it is still inconclusive, but still our opinion, that there is no difference in flare rejection in ab or idle.
The BMS flare resistance code is classified as well
I don’t understand why though, as this is a free mod of a game that was made by a long dead company makes no sense at all…